Sorry
Sorry. I know the Aids pandemic in Africa is a serious business, but read this, from Thursday's Guardian down to the bit where I started laughing:
Breakthrough hailed as study shows circumcision can halve HIV risk
Circumcision can halve the risk of a man picking up the HIV infection which leads to Aids, scientists in the United States said last night. Two major trials, in Kenya and Uganda, have confirmed what doctors and campaigners have suspected and hoped for several years. The results have major implications for the fight against the Aids pandemic raging in Africa and Asia.
Yesterday the head of the World Health Organisation's HIV/Aids department, Kevin de Cock [you can stop reading now] said it could cut the numbers of infected men by "many tens of thousands, many hundreds of thousands and maybe millions over coming years" etc.
I suppose some people are destined to fill certain jobs. Look, here he is, the admirable gentleman:
I'd change my name though, wouldn't you? If for no other reason than to prevent juvenile idiots from laughing at it.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 3:15 PM
15 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
15 Comments:
My dad read that in The Guardian and showed it to me. Glad to know we're not the only ones who found it funny!
My overwhelming feeling is what IDIOTS would consider this a viable solution against the Aids pandemic? Oh no - don't bother putting money into educating people about less risky sexual activity and contraception... Let's just abuse little boys by taking the time, money and effort in cutting off their foreskins, yes, that's surely the answer. Then they can have all the otherwise risk-laden sex they like. Cock by name, cock by nature (although that is an insult to cocks). Very passionate against circumcision. Sorry.
Interesting and passionate response, Alice. I only put the story in for a cheap laugh at a man called Cock, but let's get a debate going on more important matters.
Alice, I agree with you that circumcision is a brutal, outdated ritual and should not be even remotely considered as an alternative to contraception.
However, I also believe that ANYTHING that can help reduce the spread of AIDS in Africa and Asia should be encouraged, even if it does seem totally archaic and barbaric to Western society.
Although this name is an extreme example, New Scientist ran an item each week on what it called "nominative determinism" - the observation that people with a given surname often end up working in a field related to it, occasionally in an ironic way (e.g. the Director of the Howard League for penal reform is Frances Crook).
In light of other earnest and heartfelt posts, it would be cheap of me to make a crack about Kevin de Cock and penile reform. So I won't.
At a basic level, it just seems like madness that we have to routinely cut bits off of each other in order to stop us dying. Why can't the spread of AIDS be halted by PROPER education and availability of contraception?
I just can't believe that circumcision could be a viable solution to the problem of widespread AIDS in Africa & Asia. These operations are expensive, time consuming and in the absence of poor sanitation and appropriate aftercare, death from post operative sepsis would surely be a likely complication. I'd be interested to see the research for myself. Will look it up. The Boston Globe Editorial today says:
"As circumcisions become a standard means of AIDS prevention, officials say there will have to be several caveats. One is that the procedure must be done with sterile equipment; contaminated cutting instruments could actually accelerate the transmission of AIDS or other blood-borne diseases. Also, the circumcised men must be advised in strong terms to continue to practice safe sex, because the protection afforded by the procedure is only partial."
I'm circumcised, and I didn't and don't consider it brutal. You're forgetting that for some people not only is it a matter of faith but also of medical necessity.
Perhaps it's female circumcision you're referring to Alice and others, which is brutal.
I'm also snipped down there and don't consider it a problem, certainly has had no adverse effect on my life, am happily married and enjoy a healthy sex life.
One of my most favourite things in life and makes me happy is people with job-related names. The guy from the Met office who is always quoted in the press is Colin Flood. One of the Education secretaries here in Scotland is a Margaret Spellings.
Lovely.
In answer to anonymous... These are the reasons why I am against circumcision GENERALLY:
1. Leading experts now consider that there is no significant medical gain in performing routine circumcision.
2. It hurts, even when anaesthesia is used, the needle going in hurts and there is considerable post-op pain.
3. Infections of the wound area are common and can sometimes lead to further problems.
4. It mostly happens to non-consenting infants.
5. Many people believe a circumcised penis is cleaner. However, no other part of the body is considered suitable for cutting off if you don't wash it properly!!
6. There are physical and sexual advantages in having an intact foreskin. It is how we're designed.
Do a general Google search on the disadvantages of circumcision and you'll come across links to all the evidence I'm sure.
I find it interesting to hear what different people's definition of 'brutal' is. You consider female circumcision (FGM) to be brutal anonymous, but not male circumcision... Why is the act of clitoral excision and sewing up a girl's labia any less acceptable than the cutting off of a boy's foreskin?
Just for the record, I have less issues with men who choose circumcision in their adult life for aesthetic or whatever reasons... It's up to them to choose, but I'd hope it's an INFORMED decision. Something that the routine circumcision of infants doesn't afford.
Jude - thanks for more names and for a bit of levity.
Alice's final paragraph pretty much reflects my own opinion.
Without wishing to recourse as usual to flippancy and crudisms, my biology teacher on the matter of foreskins, said "everything enjoyable in life has its drawbacks".
Eeee! I have turned into Mrs Serious and impassioned indeed. No fun at all! Sorry.
Leaving the morality of circumcision aside, I'd take issue with Mr de Cock's theory that this is going to result in a massive reduction in aids transmission. His idea is based on an assumption that, having been circumcised, the men will continue to follow the same patterns of sexual behaviour as before they were circumcised, thereby halving the infection rate.
Isn't it more likely that the men will see themselves as less vulnerable to infection and so change their behaviour accordingly? Given how bad we are at assessing risk, this could potentially lead to a large increase in infection rates.
Actually some time ago I watched a documentary which appeared to explain why Aids is so prevalent in Africa. Apparently in countries hit by the Black Death(Britain and many European Countries) those who survived had a genetic immunity or at least ability to fight the disease. The descendants of these people therefore inherited the same genetic disposition. As the Black Death had similarities to the Aids virus, the conclusion was that countries who had not experienced the Black Death - ie Africa had more people who did not have the genetic disposition to fight the Aids Virus as effectively. Apologies to any doctors out there and I hope I have got this right but I found it fascinating.
I got myself circumcised when i was 21 years old, I now have no infections or smell down there, and the sex is a thousand times better, I can go longer and my penis is still getting thicker, so i say cut the bloody things off, damn do gooders, always finding something to say don't do this don't do that about.
Circumcision isn't a new thing, it's been done for thousands of years and way before anyone put a religion around it, it was originally done in egypt to prevent desease of the penis in the poor climate, and later became a status symbol as time went on, so next time you women and men go on about it, just don't bother, cause most of the modern world want it off, and the kids that have it on also want it off later on in life, so take it off and stop giving them something to have issues with later on in life, you are behaving like the bloody idiot here.
Post a Comment
<< Home